Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gideonpepys" data-source="post: 7372696" data-attributes="member: 79141">DM's Note -SPOILERS FOR ANY OF MY PLAYERS READING THIS!Before I add the third and final installment of Session 46, I thought I'd add a quick cautionary note for other DMs (and make up for an omission into the bargain):Last week, when it became apparent that a major memory event lay above the ruin of the Lance, Sly Marbo raised an important point: "What happens to us when the event fails?"The initial response of a 'fatalistic shrug' from the other PCs was DM-speak for the players being stumped by this question.  This came about because they all knew that in-character they would have a problem with heading up there without an escape route planned, but as players they had accepted the unspoken contract that whatever happened they would almost certainly survive unscathed.  Marbo's question burst this bubble and they had no rational response.In fact, coming here, into militarised Methia, without magic to escape is a pretty stupid idea in the first place, without adding the requirement that they climb up a 1500ft non-existent tower, given how frail they already know memory events can be.When put on the spot they feebly rationalised this decision by hoping - fingers crossed - that this memeory event would be a robust one, like the one on Odiem. But that was just one out of over two dozen events they've witnessed!  I am not criticising them for this.  I am grateful that my players jumped through hoops to keep the game going:The bit I alluded to, but forgot to resolve in the above report was that, when Uriel witnessed his 'founding event' (being brought to Methia as a child), Leon tested his magical abilities and found that they worked.  Leon just so happens to have a 3e-style insta-teleport (not a 4e ritual) - although he couldn't test that for obvious reasons. This test gave the group a relatively sound rationale on which to proceed.But if your group doesn't have such magic - or a PC in the group with other memories to explore (thereby testing the theory that a memory event that predates the Great Malice will restore magical abilities)  - what then?  Of course your group might play nice (like mine probably would have done) and proceed with fingers and toes crossed.  But what if they don't?It's an easy point to miss because, as a DM who's read the adventure, you know they'll be just fine.  But they don't.  This reminds me of an issue raised in another campaign journal (apololgies, but I forget whose) when it was pointed out that in adventure #13, the version of the party who returns to Lanjyr (when the destruction of Av splits them in two) has no reason or impetus to proceed to the finale because they don't know the other group exists.  Given that their quest to the Gyre was sold to them on the basis that it is the only way they can win this is a pretty big issue (if the group thinks it through, that is).Of course, now that I'm aware of that potential problem, I will be able to deal with it well in advance.  But in this case (returning to adventure #8), I had to think fast and hope the players accepted my hasty reassurances. But the opportunity to do so (to repeat - a memory event to test the theory and a PC capable of teleporting) may not exist in your campaign.Which brings me to another concern of mine for adventure #9:  What if the party, having surrendered to The Voice of Rot and returned from the Dreaming, decides to travel straight to Flint instead of Slate?  (They don't know the King is about to be assassinated, so why rush to the Palace instead of tackling Stanfield?)  I guess the simplest answer is: the King dies without their help.  What a shame to miss out on a whole Act of the adventure because they made a perfectly reasonable jugement call!Perhaps I'm missing something?</blockquote>

Verification